Open Carry California

[Clubsol360]

I think something positive will come out of this, namely concealed carry. There was a major California case that ruled concealed carry was unnecessary because there was open carry. The CalGuns foundation has our backs (as long as they are funded, so please donate).

 

[spartan231490]

California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.

Source [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/calif-gov-enacts-ban-open-handgun-carrying-14703202]

A subject somewhat near and dear to my heart finally came up: The new law in California has outlawed the open carry of an unloaded handgun. It has been touted as a new measure to reduce crime.

"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Dallas Stout, president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.

Happens to me every Wednesday. The hospital bills sure are starting to pile up.

I honestly fail to see the point in this. Does the government in California really believe that gangbangers carry guns openly on a regular basis? Does anyone here know a single criminal that wants to attract more attention to their criminal activities?

Now, I imagine some folks are going to bring up the Concealed Carry issue. Concealed Carry is still legal via permit. What a lot of people don't tell you is that the permit initially costs $500, and then costs $250 every two years after that (My native city/state, Portland Oregon, charged me something like $50 for a four year permit). Add this onto a bunch of regulations concerning what type of handgun you can carry, modifications to those weapons, where you can carry, blah blah blah, it is almost pointless to even bother with the process unless your work requires it.

Again, I don't hate the law for what it does... I just question why it exists in the first place. This is not going to prevent crime whatsoever. In fact, I would almost expect crime rates to rise. Crime is something that happens because we allow violence (And celebrate it) as a culture, rather than whether or not someone is carrying a handgun. For another example, I can point to the firearm ban in England. Firearm related crimes dropped... Knife crime and other related fields rose dramatically. Connection? You tell me.

So finally, I want to know what the Escapist thinks. Is there something I am missing? I mostly lurk on these forums, so I want to see where this thread goes socially/politically.

California CHL FAQ stuff [http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html]

Fun Fact: In the US, studies that make comparisons by county show a direct reverse correlation between legal handgun carry and violent crime. Also, this has been in existence for decades hasn't it? only like 7 states currently allow open carry. I'm also surprised that it's so expensive, it's like $300 for like a 10 year permit in NY

As for will it stop crime? Of fucking course not. Human beings have been killing each-other since the best weapon we had was our fists, we aren't going to stop if you take guns away.

 

[Ghengis John]

The same is true of the reverse, as is a lot of issues. What's the point of arresting someone who is desplaying an open weapon which isn't loaded. Is that really a good use of time? My guess is no

Only it's not. When you make the distinction between a loaded weapon being illegal and an unloaded weapon being legal you create a situation that law enforcement authorities must resolve. The person with the weapon has to be approached, asked to hand over their weapon for inspection, their credentials verified and then the weapon checked. Not only does this create a tense situation for officers, it's a big waste of their time to respond to these incidents. Which do you think is a better use of time and resources? For authorities to eliminate these calls altogether or to deal with an increasingly frequent number of them, spurred by tea-party activism?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The same is true of the reverse, as is a lot of issues. What's the point of arresting someone who is desplaying an open weapon which isn't loaded. Is that really a good use of time? My guess is no

Only it's not. When you make the distinction between a loaded weapon being illegal and an unloaded weapon being legal you create a situation that law enforcement authorities must resolve. The person with the weapon has to be approached, asked to hand over their weapon for inspection, their credentials verified and then the weapon checked. Not only does this create a tense situation for officers, it's a big waste of their time to respond to these incidents. Which do you think is a better use of time and resources? For authorities to eliminate these calls altogether or to deal with an increasingly frequent number of them, spurred by tea-party activism?

How many criminals do you think open carry guns they plan to use in crimes?

And how many incidents have there been of ?vigilante justice? gone wrong? Unless you can give actual numbers, it?s speculation.

And don?t be so intolerant of gun owners. hoplophobia hurts people.

Oh, and nice bit there about the Tea Party. Because, clearly, THEY are the cause of our problem.

 

[Mathurin]

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

Transportation.
I dont have a case for every one of my guns and I dont have a concealed carry permit, should I be breaking the law when I carry a rifle out to my car in preperation to sell it, or go camping or something?

Most importantly, its a way to fight hoplophobia.

Ive always had mixed feelings about open carry. It can be good because much like homophobia and racism, its a fear based in ignorance. only by confronting the ignorant in a non-violent way can it be fought. Its a political demonstration.

The problem is that, like any cause, some gun rights advocates are overzealous,

Two reasons.

First, so you can strut around like King Shit and have everyone gaze in awe at your glorious manliness. Throw in a few poses and flexes, and you basically win at everything forever.

Second, so you have a really bitching club to beat people with. Like so:

yes yes, and the cocaine fueled negro will rape our pure white women if we dont keep him under control.

A biased statement based in ignorance is not helpful to a cause worth supporting, you are propagandizing here.

Know many legal gun owners?

 

[Agayek]

yes yes, and the cocaine fueled negro will rape our pure white women if we dont keep him under control.

A biased statement based in ignorance is not helpful to a cause worth supporting, you are propagandizing here.

Know many legal gun owners?

First off, you mixed up the quotes there. I said the latter, and the other guy said the former.

Secondly, the fact that you couldn't tell I was exaggerating, if not outright trolling, makes me weep for the future of our species.

Thirdly, I do actually support open carry, and I would go so far as to say that there should be no laws[/s] regarding the ownership and transportation of weapons. It is not the right or prerogative of the government to limit what a citizen can do, provided they are not infringing on the rights of anyone else. The whole concept of gun control is ludicrous, much like the War On Drugs(tm) and the like.

Criminals will always exist and will always commit crimes. Limiting what weapons are available only removes a potential avenue of self defense. No more.

 

[DarkRyter]

This totally infringes on my right to pop a cap in the asses of punk-ass motherfuckers who get all up in my grill on the street.

 

[theheroofaction]

Well, a gun that people can see is surely less safe than one people can't see.

As well, it just inconveniences pretty much everyone.


Suppose you own a weapons shop, when you're getting your stock, somebody at some point in time has to openly carry several firearms.

Simply put, do you want the police to be able arrest people for hurting somebody or for being able to hurt somebody?

 

[SilentCom]

I think part of the point of the law is that now, if the police see someone walking down the street carrying a gun they can think, 'Hey, maybe he intends to shoot someone with it' and proceed with the proper course of action, rather than having to second guess whether someone is a criminal or not.

This seems rather sensible to me.

I don't really see how carrying a gun would make you safer anyhow. If you're being mugged the person has the drop on you, and the most likely situation is that they relieve you of your valuables. If they mug you and you're carrying, then the most likely situation seems to me that they relieve you of your valuables and your life.

For another example, I can point to the firearm ban in England. Firearm related crimes dropped... Knife crime and other related fields rose dramatically. Connection? You tell me.

The main difference and benefit is that knives kill people one at a time, whereas uzis kill indiscriminately.

This morning there was an incident near me (I live in London) where a crazy lady stole a knife, injured one person and killed another. Horrific, yes. But if she had had access to a gun...

One cannot own or purchase a gun legally if they are crazy. Knives are much easier to get a hold of, they are in every kitchen. Knives don't rely on ammunition and don't have a safety either.

Yes, guns are generally more potent in their lethality however carrying around something like an automatic uzi isn't exactly legal either. The point is, banning open carry of guns isn't going to reduce crime. When people have the will to harm others, they will find a way no matter what weapons are made illegal. They'll use their bare hands to end the lives of their enemies if they can't get a hold of a weapon.

 

[Ghengis John]

How many criminals do you think open carry guns they plan to use in crimes?

And how many incidents have there been of "vigilante justice" gone wrong? Unless you can give actual numbers, it's speculation.

And don?t be so intolerant of gun owners. Holophobia hurts people.

Oh, and nice bit there about the Tea Party. Because, clearly, THEY are the cause of our problem.

First. You never answered my question. Secondly, I never used the phrase "vigilante justice gone wrong.", nor was that my concern. Thirdly I never said anything about criminals, I asked you if it's not a waste of officer's time to have to differentiate the difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon. Stop checking your cheat-sheet because your questions have nothing to do with me. Fourthly, Not all gun owners own weapons because they feel a need to carry one at all times. It's intolerant of you to imply such a thing. Lastly, Hoplophobia is an idiotic contradiction in terms. Phobias are baseless fears. It's completely natural to be wary of a person, particularly a stranger wielding a deadly weapon, it is in fact stupid not to be. You have no idea how balanced the person who just walked into the room with a weapon is, what their intents are or if said weapon is live or not and you can never be assured that they will all behave the same way. The idea that you must arm yourself at all times for your own protection, is itself a reaction of fear.

As for the Tea Party, unfortunately they are the cause of this particular problem. Had gun activists not started carrying into restaurants and coffee houses in large numbers it's unlikely this reaction would have come about. As mathurin said:

The problem is that, like any cause, some gun rights advocates are overzealous

Does that mean you should be quiet and not push for your beliefs? No. But there were more intelligent ways to go about it.

Two reasons.

First, so you can strut around like King Shit and have everyone gaze in awe at your glorious manliness. Throw in a few poses and flexes, and you basically win at everything forever.

I never said that. You have misquoted me, sir.

Transportation.
I dont have a case for every one of my guns and I dont have a concealed carry permit, should I be breaking the law when I carry a rifle out to my car in preperation to sell it, or go camping or something?

Aye, are rifle racks in trucks then illegal now? A few people in my family regularly go hunting and I'm wondering how this will effect them. As you seem like a perfectly reasonable fellow I have to say it looks like you have gotten screwed by your less than level headed peers and I'm sorry for that.

 

[Captain_Fantastic]

if your going to break the law with a gun then a law keeping you from carrying a gun is kind of pointless allready

but im canadian and unless something comes up about it being perfectly legal to carry a sword on your person then ive not much to say

 

[jpoon]

What a stupidly pointless law, it will only affect the people who would actually use a weapon for the right reasons. Criminals aren't going to be phased by this in the least...

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

How many criminals do you think open carry guns they plan to use in crimes?

And how many incidents have there been of "vigilante justice" gone wrong? Unless you can give actual numbers, it's speculation.

And don?t be so intolerant of gun owners. Holophobia hurts people.

Oh, and nice bit there about the Tea Party. Because, clearly, THEY are the cause of our problem.

First. You never answered my question. Secondly, I never used the phrase "vigilante justice gone wrong.", nor was that my concern. Thirdly I never said anything about criminals, I asked you if it's not a waste of officer's time to have to differentiate the difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon. Stop checking your cheat-sheet because your questions have nothing to do with me. Fourthly, Not all gun owners own weapons because they feel a need to carry one at all times. It's intolerant of you to imply such a thing. Lastly, Hoplophobia is an idiotic contradiction in terms. Phobias are baseless fears. It's completely natural to be wary of a person, particularly a stranger wielding a deadly weapon, it is in fact stupid not to be. You have no idea how balanced the person who just walked into the room with a weapon is, what their intents are or if said weapon is live or not and you can never be assured that they will all behave the same way. The idea that you must arm yourself at all times for your own protection, is itself a reaction of fear.

As for the Tea Party, unfortunately they are the cause of this particular problem. Had gun activists not started carrying into restaurants and coffee houses in large numbers it's unlikely this reaction would have come about. As mathurin said:

The problem is that, like any cause, some gun rights advocates are overzealous

Does that mean you should be quiet and not push for your beliefs? No. But there were more intelligent ways to go about it.

Two reasons.

First, so you can strut around like King Shit and have everyone gaze in awe at your glorious manliness. Throw in a few poses and flexes, and you basically win at everything forever.

I never said that. You have misquoted me, sir.

Transportation.
I dont have a case for every one of my guns and I dont have a concealed carry permit, should I be breaking the law when I carry a rifle out to my car in preperation to sell it, or go camping or something?

Aye, are rifle racks in trucks then illegal now? A few people in my family regularly go hunting and I'm wondering how this will effect them. As you seem like a perfectly reasonable fellow I have to say it looks like you have gotten screwed by your less than level headed peers and I'm sorry for that.

My answer was that assuming that all guns are threats is stupid.

Very good, on the second point.

Very well

I'M the intollerent one? I never said ALL gun owners arm themselves at all time. You're putting words in my mouth.

And finally, you're being very discrimiatory against people due to their lifestyle choices, in this case, to own and carry a weapon. So yes, Hoplophobia is a good word. Stop being so Hoplophobic!

 

[Saltyk]

I think part of the point of the law is that now, if the police see someone walking down the street carrying a gun they can think, 'Hey, maybe he intends to shoot someone with it' and proceed with the proper course of action, rather than having to second guess whether someone is a criminal or not.

This seems rather sensible to me.

I don't really see how carrying a gun would make you safer anyhow. If you're being mugged the person has the drop on you, and the most likely situation is that they relieve you of your valuables. If they mug you and you're carrying, then the most likely situation seems to me that they relieve you of your valuables and your life.

For another example, I can point to the firearm ban in England. Firearm related crimes dropped... Knife crime and other related fields rose dramatically. Connection? You tell me.

The main difference and benefit is that knives kill people one at a time, whereas uzis kill indiscriminately.

This morning there was an incident near me (I live in London) where a crazy lady stole a knife, injured one person and killed another. Horrific, yes. But if she had had access to a gun...

And how many criminals do you think walk around with an unloaded gun on their hip? They don't want to be noticed. It makes it really hard to commit crimes without going to prison. I don't even think open carry is practiced much except for on occasions to prove certain points. At least, that's when I hear about it the most.

And if the police did see someone with an unloaded gun on their hip, I guarantee you they would stop and talk to that person. It's completely within their power to do that. I have a friend that has been pulled over with guns in his vehicle. He has a firearm permit and informed the officer of these facts. He is always asked to exit the vehicle while the officer locates his guns. And this has happened multiple times. He's totally within his rights, but so is the cop.

Also, if you, as a mugger, see someone with a gun and decide to mug them anyway, you are a complete idiot. Think about this: How much money is in YOUR wallet/purse at this moment? Personally, I have $7US on me. At most, I might have $20-40US on me. Is $7-40US worth confronting someone with a gun? Is it worth killing them? Is it worth serious jail time, up to the rest of your natural life? Is it worth dying? Criminals generally target "safe" or easy targets. People that won't or can't fight back. In fact, even just being willing to confront a person is a pretty gutsy and dangerous move.

Look, not all criminals are the Joker. Most would rather do a little crime rather than a big one. Thieves and muggers don't want to kill people. They want to scare them and make a little easy money. Because the instant they cross that line, they are in bad shape. Theft, robbery, and even armed robbery, don't compare to murder. Even if you committed 50 counts of theft or robbery, one murder would be enough to put you away for life or even sentence you to death. So, your situation doesn't really work.

And who says knife wielding maniacs aren't dangerous? How about This guy [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/09/world/knife-wielding-man-kills-8-children-at-japanese-school.html] or This one [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18992200/] or even This piece of work [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-12-new-york-stabbings_N.htm]. That took me less than a minute to find three stories about people killing multiple others with knives. Maybe it's not as easy as it is with guns, but it happens. Even in places where you can get guns, people kill with knives. The bottom line is that people do not and never did need guns to kill each other. It might be easier, but there's plenty of reason to think that letting people defend themselves with guns is a good idea.

And why an uzi? Why not a 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol? That is way more realistic to mention. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the United States. Sure you can get semi-automatic versions which can be modified to fire as fully automatic fairly easily (it's illegal to do that, by the way), but there's a world of difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic.

For the record. I do not own any guns. Nor am I afraid of guns. And I support the rights of people to own guns for hunting, sport, and self defense.

Anyway, I hope you see this as a different point of view. I'm not trying to berate you or anything. Just informing.

 

[Mathurin]

Well I think it might indeed reduce crime since people will, if policed effectively, not be carrying guns around.

Not true, people carry illegally concealed already, this law just makes open carry illegal, it will have no affect on those who have been breaking a similar law for years.

And, if the pop culture exported by the state is anything to go by, "g-bangers" do walk around with uzi's in their trackpants.

1. thats PR, I wouldnt believe it.
2. if they really did they would have been shot at by the police long ago.

I don't know, I think it's a shame this law should be in existence because people shouldn't think they need to carry guns. Like people have said many times, it's not pre-US revolution anymore and people don't need guns anymore. Hunters in Australia have rifles for pests and predators, policemen have guns, but basically no one else does and I can't remember the last time someone got shot in Melbourne.

(don't quote me on that, of course)

there are needs and then there are needs, and I dont need to have a need to exercise a right.

Its a new world, you dont need the right to vote, its so troublesome for those in power to have to pander to you.

You dont need the right to demonstrate to have your voice heard, lets get rid of that too.




single event fallacy runs rampant with gun crimes, australia is a major example of this.

no mass killings
1 mass killing is dramatically reported in the news, public opinion is swayed and insane gun laws are enacted
years later
no mass killings in recent memory (other than that last one) IT WORKED!!!!!


Mass killings are not caused by the existence of firearms, at most they are aided by them.

The US has plenty of them, but its not because of guns, banning firearms is like popping a pain pill, it may make you feel better, but whatever made you ill is still occurring, you just dont feel it as badly.

 

[Tselis]

It's California, they're just crazy.

 

[magnuslion]

What's the problem, guns can still be used for home defense. I thought that was the whole point of them and not for carrying at all times.

seriously dude, Learn your damn Constitution.

OT: pretty much pisses me off anytime the Gov'ment decides it can take freedoms away from people. Screw Jerry Brown, I hope he gets hit by a bus.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

What's the problem, guns can still be used for home defense. I thought that was the whole point of them and not for carrying at all times.

Snip.

I think what you mean to say is that a sad kitten will convince him of the error of his ways. (I might edit that post, were I you)